Petition to save SACD

soundboy · « **on:** 30 Mar 2005, 10:32 pm »

Here it is....currently 207 signatures

http://www.petitiononline.com/SACD/petition.html

nathanm · « **Reply #1 on:** 30 Mar 2005, 11:47 pm »

I feel bad for all those people. Because none of them are going to get their way. They're a tiny minority and they're going to be bulldozed by the rest of the market. Even if 20,000 people signed that thing Sony wouldn't budge. Their eyes are on the account books, not online petitions.

With CD we reached the nadair of what Joe Consumer wants from audio. All They care about is having no surface noise. Once it was gone they were sold. None of the other tweaky audiophile stuff beyond that means jack squat to them. Try explaining why DSD is a cool thing to Joe Consumer. Forget it! High resolution? It doesn't matter. What are SACDs anyway? The ones that come in the slightly different jewel case with the rounded edges? They look just like CDs, I don't get it! Why doesn't it play in my car?

Conversely, Apple and anyone like them is going to make a mint by pumping out MP3s, CHARGING the same as what CDs cost, having to print NO album artwork and getting people to listen on fucking EARBUD HEADPHONES!!! Any format that features higher quality is going to be reduced to a handful of enthusiasts. Audiophiles and hardcore music lovers will have at best rack of obscure SACDs re-releases to choose from (probably from PCM audio anyway), each one of them costing 50 bucks. Half-ass is the way of the future. It is what the people want. Give me convenience or give me death.

This is what everyone's "record collection" will look like in the future:

But hey I signed it, why not? It's kind of like baling out the sinking boat with a soup ladle. Sure it won't do any good, but at least you can say you tried.

Bingenito · « **Reply #2 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 12:59 am »

Sorry but Redbook on a good CD player or DAC transport combo is better then SACD IMO.

XRCD proves that SACD is not needed. Play an XRCD on a quality redbook player and you will hear what I am talking about.

SACD -Been there, done that and sold it on Audiogon.......

jpsartre · « **Reply #3 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 04:29 am »

Quote from: Bingenito

XRCD proves that SACD is not needed.

You might want to get rid of the Bose Acoustimass if you can't hear the difference between the two!

beat · « **Reply #4 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 04:39 am »

Quote from: nathanm

... Half-ass is the way of the future. It is what the people want. Give me convenience or give me death. ...

That is what I said after leaving dinner tonight (feeling sick..I saw it coming but we had a coupon) and noticing all the other big chain restaurants along "restaurant alley" just packed to the F-in max!! half assed food for 12 bucks a plate yet people flock to these joints. Oh, right, SACD..I signed it too. I like it but could live without it

JoshK · « **Reply #5 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 04:48 am »

SACD would rock if they released some f-in software! And not tired ol' oldies, I want to some new stuff, broad range on SACD, and not just cruddy cd transfers to SACD. But alas I am dreaming, I knew SACD would never make it but I still have a player.

And even the best redbook playback doesn't beat SACD to my ears, when it is done right.

John Ashman · « **Reply #6 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 04:56 am »

Quote from: Bingenito

Sorry but Redbook on a good CD player or DAC transport combo is better then SACD IMO..

Totally agree. SACD is a *total* deviation from the path to perfection. It is colored, and, objectively, measureably *worse* than CD in some ways and worse than DVD-A in every way. It is a bad concept that's lived way too long and needs to die sooner rather than later. Is there a "kill SACD" petition? If you convert 24/96 to SACD, it sounds like SACD. If you convert SACD to 24/96, it sounds like SACD. If you have any logic in your brain capacity, figure that out and tell me which is transparent and which is colored. 24/96 is *the* standard for recording. And there's a reason for that.

beat · « **Reply #7 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 04:59 am »

Quote from: JoshK

SACD would rock if they released some f-in software! And not tired ol' oldies, I want to some new stuff, broad range on SACD, and not just cruddy cd transfers to SACD...

Seriously, I never understood why there had to be like every Stones album ever made which of course is transfered. Then again, they are magically remastered and I can get Air Supply and Mariah Carys greatest hits too so I guess I'll stop whining now.

John Ashman · « **Reply #8 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 05:02 am »

You know what my theory on the Stones is? "Write enough music, some of it is bound to be good".

Bingenito · « **Reply #9 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 12:16 pm »

Quote

You might want to get rid of the Bose Acoustimass if you can't hear the difference between the two!

Not to start a pissing contest but there are no Bose in my room. Check the system link on this post.

I have compared several players from mid priced SACD such as Pioneer, Onkyo, Denon, to an Esoteric DV50 on SACD and preferred the Esoteric which I owned for 1 year.

I now own a Sim Audio Eclipse limited edition and will take CD on the Sim over SACD on any other the others playing the same recording on SACD.

As for speakers if you consider a pair of line arrays with some of the finest drivers ever produced Bose well I will not comment there.

If you are comparing a few $1000 players like the ones mentioned above their SACD performance is better then their redbook.

Anyway as I said stick a fork in this format

budyog · « **Reply #10 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 03:21 pm »

This whole thing of these choices is really a drag. I have not heard SACD so I cannot comment on the sound of it. But I have become a DVD-A enjoyer/collector and think it is the best I have ever heard and was very excited about the Dueldisc and the possibilities of mass production and purchased 2 of them. It sounded like a meeting of the minds has taken place.

One plays great and the other won't, in regards to the DVD-A side. I have not tried the CD side. Anyway, the other day I read on Highfidelityreview.com that many issues have arrised in regards to many players having problems playing them. I have two scary thought's for the future:

1) We 2 channel people will not be able to get things in 2 channel, it will only be in surround sound.
2) That we people who want superior sound and knowing they have the capability, will not be available to us.

nathanm · « **Reply #11 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 05:16 pm »

I hope both formats survive. Choices are good. One thing I really like about SACD for music is that there's no interface. You stick the disc in and press play. No menus, no TV set required.

There's no such thing as perfection, especially in audio. The storage medium is hardly the final arbiter of quality anyway. I just don't think there's any absolutes in terms of what's "transparent" and what's "colored". There's dozens of stages to go through before the music is stored either in PCM or DSD.

Horizons · « **Reply #12 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 05:40 pm »

Quote from: Bingenito

Sorry but Redbook on a good CD player or DAC transport combo is better then SACD IMO.
XRCD proves that SACD is not needed. Play an XRCD on a quality redbook player and you will hear what I am talking about.
SACD -Been there, done that and sold it on Audiogon.......

I agree 100%. I have a few SACDs and I do believe they sound pretty good. But once I heard a non-OS, filterless DAC powered by a battery, those redbooks sounded so close to SACD that I was convinced that SACD was just not worth the investment and waiting endlessly for the software is torture.

Let SACD die. It's just a matter of time now.

budyog · « **Reply #13 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 06:13 pm »

Choices are good as long as there are a lot of disc in each catagory. I must admit that with DVD-A, the TV, menue deal is a bit of a hassle, but the sound quality is so worth it. The added features of od DVD-A are pretty neat also.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #14 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 06:45 pm »

I don't think "redbook vs. SACD" has been fought on an even playing field yet, so I reserve judgement as to whether SACD has the *potential* to be consistently better than redbook. Redbook CD has had 20 years to evolve and improve. And sure, there are a lot of lessons learned about redbook that are also applicable to SACD. But I'm also pretty sure there's a lot about developing SACD players that have not yet been discovered.

That said, given *today's* players, it would be hard to convince me that when considering the state-of-the-art for both redbook and SACD that (1) SACD is consistently better than redbook, and (2) even when better, SACD is better enough to justify the expense of replacing a large redbook CD collection with SACD versions. Another caveat is that I have no interest in multi-channel music.

I do understand the point that very few SACDs out there now are pure DSD recordings; and even the ones that are "pure" for the most part go through a PCM conversion for editing et al...so maybe I don't have enough experience with the highest of quality SACDs to judge. But I do think that the recording techniques, mixing, mastering, etc all play such a huge role in the final quality of the audio that I think it would be really tough to reach the conclusion that one is hugely better than the other based on what's currently available hardware- and software-wise.

Regarding XRCDs, I am a big fan; but I am not sure how much of it is the XRCD manufacturing/mastering process vs. how much of it is that the mastering engineers are excellent (or simply to my liking). I've been spending a lot of time recently listening to XRCDs from First Impression Music, and the sonics are stunning...but then so are some of the non-XRCD discs from FIM.

One recording that I've heard on both XRCD and SACD is Jazz at the Pawnshop. And without a doubt, the XRCD CD is far more enjoyable and well-mastered...even my most die-hard SACD-fan friends admit this without hesitation.

Just my rambling 2 cents...

KT · « **Reply #15 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 06:48 pm »

I signed the petition.

I didn't know that SACD was in danger of becoming extinct, though. When did Sony announce this? Is there a link to the brief? I'm confused.

Thanks,
KT

PhilNYC · « **Reply #16 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 06:51 pm »

Quote from: KT

I signed the petition.

I didn't know that SACD was in danger of becoming extinct, though. When did Sony announce this? Is there a link to the brief? I'm confused.

Thanks,
KT

I don't think it has been announced, but with all the big battling in the new format war between DVD HD and Blu-Ray, there have been a lot of assumptions that Sony will be focusing its efforts to get Blu-Ray out there...and its unlikely that they will want to keep supporting SACD when they hope they can achieve manufacturing scale with Blu-Ray transports/devices...

corwin99 · « **Reply #17 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 07:49 pm »

I signed the petition also. I like SACD but I could easily live without it. XRCD right now has really got my attention. I've noticed HK/China/Asia in particular has really embraced the format.

Nelson

doug s. · « **Reply #18 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 08:35 pm »

i have never purchased a single sacd & cannot imagine the time when i will ever purchase one. i will be interested in *any* format only when it's what i see on the shelves when i go to borders books/tower records/etc.

if/when the software industry sees that their best financial gain shall be had by completely revamping the format, like when they went to cd from winyl back in the 80's, then & *only* then will we see a format change. dvd/a & sacd are unlikely to be the driver - there is no financial incentive for any of the software mfr's to make the change, like there was when they ditched winyl in favor of cd. cd's cost a small fraction to make vs making an lp, & they could charge *more* for each disc!?! if sound quality were the driver, the industry could have adopted 24/192 instead of 16/44.1 from the beginning - the technology *was* there. but the industry dint wanna spend the initial up-front costs, even tho they were still making a huge killing getting out of winyl & going to the li'l silver discs.

my only hope is that when a format change *does* occur, the reduction in sound quality won't be as bad as it was when the industry went to cd over winyl.

doug s.

ghersh · « **Reply #19 on:** 31 Mar 2005, 09:16 pm »

Quote from: nathanm

With CD we reached the nadair of what Joe Consumer wants from audio. All They care about is having no surface noise. Once it was gone they were sold. None of the
other tweaky audiophile stuff beyond that means jac ...

You sound like everyone who doesn't believe that SACD is a viable format is 'Joe Consumer', and only You, The Englightened One, know the Truth.

But the truth is that the advantages of SACD is terms of sound is from marginal to non-existant, and DSD process has some positive and some negative aspects. In fact, it is very hard to distinguish properly mastered Red Book format from high-res master from the SACD format.

Disadvantage of SACD - a lot. Not only, to quote you, 'Joe Consumer' does not care. Most of the serious collectors of either classical music or jazz do not care either. For instance, I have about 1000 CDs of classical recordings, about 500 CDs of jazz, and also some rock and pop. Neither majority of the classical CDs I own hasn't been re-released in SACD format, nor I care, simply because loots of recordings I have were made before 60s, not exactly state of the art recording equipment, and remastering the original master tape for SACD won't improve anything. I have no insentives to move to SACD.

Finally, some hard facts. 16-bit resolution which is Red Book format is suboptimal, this is true. However our hearing can't detect anything better than 18-bit resolution, so 20 and 24 bit resolution is simply an overkill, ditto for DSD, and furthermore, recording at high res (20 or 24 bits) and then dithering while convering to 16 bit is practically indistinguishable from 18-bit resolution, there was enough experiments done to confirm this point.

Incidently I don't care too much of DVD-A either. Multichannel and HT is a cheap gimmick. In fact, I've been reading that more and more people are moving away from HT to the regular 2-channel stereo setup. Good for them. I never bought HT concept in a first place.